Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, but the description adds a trait annotations cannot express: it does not consume execution quota. It also flags an ownership/privacy precondition for _session_id. No return-format detail, but an output schema exists, so this is solid added context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences that lead with the action and the cost benefit, then the conditional parameter requirement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to add cost and privacy context, which it does. It could still say what 'client messages' means or when status is stale, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Coverage is 80% and the schema already documents the four underscore-prefixed optional params. The description adds genuine meaning by telling the agent when _session_id becomes effectively required (private deliveries), which the schema's 'bind a Day Pass' text does not state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a Zambo Handover's current status and client messages), which is enough to separate it from handover_list and handover. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives one conditional usage instruction (supply _session_id for private deliveries) and an implicit cost-based reason to prefer this over a full execution. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage remains implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.